Understanding How Not To Interpret A Graph

One theory which alarmists used to talk about (before they went full criminal) was that global warming causes stratospheric cooling, and they used the trend below.

ScreenHunter_101 Aug. 11 09.47

RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

This is a very clever graph – for the brain damaged. What actually happened was that two volcanic eruptions pushed particulates up into stratosphere. The particles absorbed sunlight and warmed the upper atmosphere. When the particulates settled out, temperatures cooled and flattened. There is no “CO2 footprint”

ScreenHunter_100 Aug. 11 09.44

RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.txt

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Understanding How Not To Interpret A Graph

  1. @NJSnowFan says:

    Steve, I was thinking about this yesterday in a different way.
    The more gasses in the atmosphere and in the air would push the stratosphere higher? Kinda like filling a balloon with air, the more air/ gas in the balloon the larger it gets. I know earth is large but could the more gases in the atmosphere push the stratosphere and troposphere higher up away from earths surface?

  2. Streetcred says:

    My understanding is that the atmosphere varies in height naturally anyway but that this does not impact the “hot spot” in the troposphere.

  3. F. Guimaraes says:

    Another good one Steve, Chichon was a VEI5 and I think we should also include S. Helens (VEI5) in 1980 to explain the first peak. This is in fact the first time that I noticed that the oscillations after the two peaks of these charts actually have a flat average, but I’m finding this chart a bit strange because if the stratospheric temps have flattened after the eruptions, why would they reach sequentially lower levels?
    Does this mean that the aerosols are still there cooling that region of the atmosphere? I’d be surprised if this turns out to be true.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      ps.: the “lower levels” cannot be a CO2 footprint because they’re flat, right?
      Then, why the trend to lower temps? Notice that the first part of the graph also shows a flat average with higher anomalies in agreement with the general cooling trend.
      I’ve seen these graphs so many times and never noticed that before…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s